European Union Bridge League

Championships 1996
Oostende Belgium - 20th-26th April 1996

Appeal No. 1

Mixed Pairs, Session 1

Board 23 NORTH
Both vul A7432
Dealer S 10 9
10 5 3
WEST K43 EAST
K6 Q95
Q87653 J2
AKJ4 Q872
A SOUTH 10 9 6 5
J 10 8
AK4
96
QJ872

W N E S
- - - pass
1 pass pass 1NT
2 2 ...pass pass
3 pass 3 All Pass

Result : 3 + 1, -170 to N-S.

The Facts : The TD was called to the table at the end of the auction. There had been a hesitation over 2 ,
agreed by East. The TD felt West had bid her hand already with 2 and that there was a risk in bidding again,
especially with Kx in front of the spade bidder.

The TD's Ruling : West's risk in bidding a third time is reduced by East's hesitation over 2 . The score is
therefore adjusted to 2 just making, +110 to N-S.

The Committee's Decision : West claimed that she took no notice of partner's hesitation, that she had "a
wonderful hand", and that partner is likely to have at least some slender values after the weak bidding from the
opponents.

However, the Commitee was unanimous that the hesitation had removed enough of the risk from a further bid
from West to debar her from bidding again. The TD's adjustment was thus upheld. The Committee did feel
that the appeal had some merit and the deposit was refunded.
Comment: West clearly felt that her 3 bid was a normal, not to say routine, pairs action. However, the
criterion which needs to be applied in all 'Unauthorised Information' situations is not what is a normal action for
a particular player, but rather what is a normal action for the population of players of like ability. This is the
basis for the so-called '70% rule', and is the principle Appeals Committees will apply.

Here, most players would feel that there is more than a little risk attached to a 3 bid because East-West are
vulnerable on what is clearly a partscore hand, a risk which must be reduced by partner's hesitation.

Appeal No. 2

Mixed Pairs, Session 3

Board 5 NORTH
NS vul K9873
Dealer N 94
10 9 6
WEST K87 EAST
AQ J 10 4
K J 10 6 5 2 Q3
7 J8543
Q952 SOUTH A J 10
652
A87
AKQ2
643

W N E S
- pass pass 1
1 1 pass 1NT
2 2 ...pass pass
3 pass 3 3
All Pass

Result : 3 -2, -200 for N-S

The Facts: South called the TD when West bid 3 . She wanted to preserve her rights after a hesitation from
East over 2 . The TD asked East, then West about this hesitation and they both said "No". West said: "I felt
nothing". Asking North, he said it was a slight hesitation. South maintains, there was surely a hesitation. The
ruling was difficult.

The TD's Ruling : The TD's mind was, "There will be probably a hesitation, even if it is slight" because East
had 9 points after two bids from West." So the TD did not allow West's bid of 3 and returned the score to 2
-1, 100 pts for EW.

The Committee's Decision : Hesitation not proven. West is thus free to act as she likes. Table result stands: 3
-2, -200 for NS.

Editor's Comment : I fully accept the Committee's decision if the hesitaion is unproven. However, as a bridge
player holding the East hand, nothing would have stopped me from raising 2 to 3 , whether North bids 2
or passes. I strongly suspect, therefore, that there was some break in tempo which West, perhaps
subconsciously, picked up.

Appeal No. 3

Mixed Pairs, Session 3

Board 28 NORTH
NS vul 10 9 6 4
Dealer E K973
73
WEST K94 EAST
832 Q75
J 10 8 6 2 4
AJ95 K Q 10 6
10 SOUTH J8765
AKJ
AQ5
842
AQ32

W N E S
- - pass 2NT
pass 3 * pass 3 *
pass 4 pass 4NT
All Pass

Result : 4NT+2, +690 for NS

The Facts : At his last pass, East, wondering why 4 hadn't beeen alerted, asks the meaning of the 3 bid.
Explained by North as 1 or 2 4-card majors. Before the first lead, South corrected the explanation of North,
after being asked by East what 4 meant. She answered "He has diamonds".

Since the convention card of N-S wasn't filled out, I couldn't ascertain if the this answer was correct. After
investigation, I found that North was bidding Puppet Stayman, but South took it for old-fashioned Stayman.
For me there was no unauthorised information between North and South.

The TD's Ruling : Since E-W were damaged by the wrong explanation, of South on 4 , I changed the score
to 4NT-1, 100 for E-W.

The Committee's Decision : We feel that if 4 had been alerted, East would have doubled. N-S then have no
obvious escape. We therefore accept the ruling of 4NT-1.

Appeal No. 4

Mixed Pairs, Session 3

Board 18 NORTH
NS vul 10 9 6 4
Dealer E K973
73
WEST K94 EAST
832 Q75
J 10 8 6 2 4
AJ95 K Q 10 6
10 SOUTH J8765
AKJ
AQ5
842
AQ32

W N E S
- - pass 1 *
pass 1 * dbl* pass
2 pass pass dbl
pass 2 pass 3
dbl pass pass 3
pass 4 pass 4
All Pass

Result : 4 -2, -200 for N-S

The Facts : 1 strong; East afterwards claimed that 1 was not Alerted (16+). 1 was artificial, a positive
hand with fewer than 3 controls, game forcing. East's first double was explained as + . The player (East)
didn't ask the meaning of 1 but told me that he was trying to show both suits ( + ).

The TD's Ruling : The hand (East) differs from the explanation. E-W cannot prove otherwise (convention
card is blanc here). So I have to assume wrong information. 4 is then a probable contract, so the score is
adjusted to 4 =, +620 for N-S.

The Committee's Decision : 4 -2, -200 for NS. Misinformation not shown, but essentially N-S could
discover from the bidding that hearts were more likely to break badly than spades (the first double implies
shortness in hearts). Spades seems to be a better 4-3 contract and might make even if East has Qxxx.

Comment : Even if there is misinformation, the table result should only be altered, in law, if the damage to the
other side is a consequence of the misinformation. Since misinformation here is unproven, the table result
should remain.

Appeal No. 5

Mixed Pairs, Session 3

Board 19 NORTH
EW vul K752
Dealer S A73
10 9 8 6
WEST K2 EAST
J 10 9 4 Q
KJ9 Q 10 8 4
- AQ72
AJ9543 SOUTH Q876
A863
652
KJ543
10

W N E S
- - - pass
pass 1 * pass 1
pass pass 1NT* pass
2 pass 2NT pass
3 pass pass 3
All Pass

Result : 3 -2, -100 for N-S

The Facts : 1 = 5-card majors, 4-card diamonds. 1NT alerted but not asked for meaning. Later explained as
"less than 15 pts"

The TD's Ruling : Since East did not hear an explanation from West during the auction, he cannot know
what his partner thinks his bid means. Therefore no unauthorized information and no adjusted score.

The Committee's Decision : The East player was questioned as to what he thought his partner's explanation
of 1NT would have been, and it seemed clear that he thought the explanation would have been what it turned
out to be. The decision of the TD is agreed. The deposit is refunded.

Appeal No. 6

Ladies Pairs, Session 2

Board 10 NORTH
All vul J97
Dealer E K842
76
WEST 7643 EAST
10 5 4 AKQ8632
J 10 3 -
Q 10 8 5 43
A85 SOUTH Q 10 9 2
-
AQ9765
AKJ92
KJ

W N E S
- - 1 2 *
3 pass 4 5
dbl pass pass 5
...dbl pass 5 All Pass

Result : 5 -1, +100 for N-S.

The Facts : The hesiation was agreed, described as "...not long". The TD was called after the play.

The TD's Ruling : Because there was no bid over 5 -dbl, there was no reason for East to bid 5 over 5 -
dbl. There is a line of play to make 12 tricks in N-S finessing against the Q. Adjusted score: 5 dbl +1, +
1050 for N-S.

The Committee's Decision : We accept the ruling of the TD. If East is correct to remove the double of 5 ,
she should also remove the double of 5 (if they were made in the same tempo). The deposit is refunded.

Comment : The Committee considered the possibility that East had passed 5 x but pulled 5 x simply
because she thought she had more defence against 5 than she had against 5 . However, the heart void could
cut both ways: a ruffing potential in 5 and an indication of a bad trump split in 5 , as long as both of West's
doubles are equally prompt.

Appeal No. 7

Seniors Teams Round 1

Board 7 NORTH
All vul 976
Dealer S 3
Q J 10 7 6 5 2
WEST 73 EAST
K3 AQ842
AK96542 QJ8
A4 83
Q 10 SOUTH K95
J 10 5
10 7
K9
AJ8642

W N E S
- - - pass
1 * 3 3 pass
4 pass 4NT* pass
5 pass 5 pass
6 All Pass

Result : 6 = -1460 for E-W

The Facts : 5 =0 or 3 keycards out of 5. 5 : after hesitation agreed by all the players. N-S protested against 6
.

The TD's Ruling : TD considers that the risk of finding 2 losers ( A and A or AK) has been diminished.
Adjusted score: 5 +1, -680 for N-S

The Committee's Decision : TD's ruling upheld. It is possible that a player in some circumstances may use
Blackwood without an Ace and in that case the 5 signoff would be prompt. So the risk of bidding 6 the
risk of bidding 6 must be diminshid by the hesitation.

Deposit : forfeited.

Comment : East could have avoided this problem if East had considered his continuation after partner's
response to Blackwood before bidding 4NT.

Appeal No. 8

Ladies Teams Round 1

Board 18 NORTH
NS vul 86
Dealer E Q 10 5 3
A92
WEST AK43 EAST
K AQ52
K87 9642
J87 K54
Q J 10 7 6 2 SOUTH 95
J 10 9 7 4 3
AJ
Q 10 6 3
8

Result : 4 -3, -300 for NS

The Facts : The TD was called to the table:

W: J / N: K / E: 4 and 5 / S: J

West told South quietly something about the clubs. TD asked South who told about the revoke. She answered:
"I dont know". At the other side of the screen, TD asked East how she discovered her revoke; answer: "I
looked into my hand and found another club". North said that she didn't notice anything about the
conversation at the other side of the screen and the captains didn't say anything!

The TD's Ruling : The TD decided for an unestablished revoke and a major penalty card. Result stands.

The Committee's Decision : The Committee determined that the TD had acted correctly given the
information available to her. After a fuller investigation at the hearing it was agreed that the revoke was
established. The score was therefore adjusted to 4 -1, -100 for N-S

Deposit : refunded.

Comment : The Laws of Bridge state that a defender may not draw attention to partner's revoke without
establishing the revoke. Even creating a hesitation for the apparent purpose of allowing partner time to wake up
will establish the revoke.

Appeal No. 9

Juniors Teams Round 2

Board 4 NORTH
All vul AJ5432
Dealer W 53
10 6 5 2
WEST 4 EAST
- KQ976
10 8 4 A972
KQJ4 A9
A98753 SOUTH K 10
10 8
KQJ6
873
QJ62

W N E S
pass pass 1 pass
2 pass 3 * pass
4 pass pass pass

Result : 4 = -620 for N-S

The Facts : After the bidding, 3 was explained as 5+ and 5+ . Afterwards, East explained to the TD that
he knew that they agreed on 3 being 5+ /5+ but that he decided in this special case to bid 3 with 5/4.
The convention card could not prove this statement, so the TD had to assume that there was some wrong
information by E-W. According to the TD, South had actually no reason to try and give his partner a club ruff.
After a club lead, declarer played a small heart for South who continued with diamonds in the third trick. He
might have played clubs now if he knew that East could hold a 5/4.

The TD's Ruling : With correct information, N-S would never have made the the subsequent defensive error.
Adjusted score: 4 -1, +100 for N-S.

The Committee's Decision : TD's decision agreed. EW have the onus of proving that there was not
misinformtion. (It is not relevant that the Committee believes them.) Their convention card does not prove it.
Thus possible damage to N-S.

Deposit : refunded.

Appeal No. 10

Mixed Teams Round 2

Board 5 NORTH
NS vul AJ6
Dealer N Q92
A5
WEST J9752 EAST
K74 Q 10 9 8
874 KJ653
KQ6432 97
3 SOUTH K6
532
A 10
J 10 8
A Q 10 8 4

W N E S
- 1NT 2 * dbl*
2 * 3 pass 3 *
dbl pass pass 4
All Pass

Result : 4 = +130 for N-S

The Facts : 2 for the majors, double on 2 is natural. 2 explained by East to North: "asking for majors",
by West to South: "natural". Misinformation by East, so North thinks now that 3 is natural and passed on 3
doubled. With the correct information, 3 would be asking for a diamond stopper and he would have bid
3NT.

The TD's Ruling : Adjusted score: 3NT = +600 for N-S.

The Committee's Decision : We accept the ruling of the TD based on misinformation. The misinformation
was certain, as was the consequent damage. The Committee felt there was no substantial ground for appeal
there.

Deposit : forfeited.

Editors Comment : At championship level players are assumed to know their system. It is quite likely that
problems caused by system misinformation will continue to be severely penalised by Appeals Committees.

Appeal No. 11

Juniors Round 5
Board 5 NORTH
NS vul J97632
Dealer N K J 10 5 2
32
WEST - EAST
10 8 5 KQ
A4 Q973
Q87 A64
AK954 SOUTH QJ73
A4
86
K J 10 9 5
10 8 6 2

W N E S
1NT 2 * dbl* 2
pass pass dbl ...pass
pass 2 dbl All Pass

Result : 2 dbl -1, -200 for N-S.

The Facts : 2 (N): 5/4 majors. East's first double: penalty for 1 major. 2 = natural, no 3-carder in the
majors. The TD was called after the play. There was an agreed slight hesitation (a few seconds) by South
before passing after 2 -dbl.

The TD's Ruling : The TD decided that 2H by North was allowed because of the 6/5 majors holding, despite
the the slight hesitation by South. Result stands, E-W appeals.

The Committee's Decision : The slight hesitation made it easier for North to bid rather than to pass. The
Committee therefore ruled that North had relevant unauthorised information and the contract was changed to 2
-dbl. There was then the main difficulty of determining what happens to 2 -dbl. If West leads A, the
contract is down one, if he leads a trump from Qxx it is three down. We ruled that 50% of the time he would
lead A (-200) and 50% a trump (-800). The result of this calculation was that the appealing side were
awarded an additional 4 imps.

Appeal No. 12

Open Round 6
Board 12 NORTH
NS vul J97632
Dealer W K J 10 5 2
32
WEST - EAST
10 8 5 KQ
A4 Q973
Q87 A64
AK954 SOUTH QJ73
A4
86
K J 10 9 5
10 8 6 2

W N E S
1 2 * dbl* 2
pass pass dbl pass
pass 2 dbl All Pass

Result : 2 dbl -3, -800 for N-S.

The Facts : 2 on both sides alerted and explained as spades and another suit. Double on 2 : East's version:
points, West's version: "I'm not sure; probably with spades. If 2 would be spades and another known suit, it
would be with spades; for instance, if 2 would be spades and hearts then the double would be with spades".

South claimes that if he had not been told that the double would probably include spades, with two cards in
hearts and spades, he might have bid 2 at some point.

The TD's Ruling : Adjusted Score: 2 +1, +140 for N-S.

The Committee's Decision : TD's ruling upheld because of misinformation. West should not speculate about
what the bid might show. If there is not a known partnership agreement, one should do no more than explain
that this is the situation. We felt it was a substantial appeal and refunded the deposit.

Appeal No. 13

Mixed Teams Round 4

Board 5 NORTH
NS vul KQ7
Dealer N KJ5
6
WEST J98763 EAST
J 10 8 4 3 2 -
Q96 A87432
Q 10 4 A875
10 SOUTH AQ4
A965
10
KJ932
K52

W N E S
- 1 1 dbl*
3 pass 4 4NT
pass 5 All Pass

Result : 5 -3, -300 for N-S.

The Facts : double = four spades. 4NT explained by South to West as asking for the minors. 4NT explained
by North to East as Blackwood (5 = no Aces)

East explains that she would have doubled 5 if she had known that 4NT was for the minors.

The TD's Ruling : The convention card cannot prove that the explanation is correct, so the score is adjusted
to 5 -dbl -3, -800 for NS. TD took into account the fact that East should have doubled 5 anyway, but she
could not have made that mistake without the wrong explanation.

The Committee's Decision : Regardless of the meaning of 4NT, the Committee felt that East should always
double 5 because N-S have nowhere to run. In addition, South's sputnik double will normally show only
four spades, and East knows by the answer to 'Blackwood' that North has no Aces. Thus N-S are already in
trouble. We therefore overruled the TD and returned the contract to 5 undoubled down three.

Appeal No. 14

Juniors Teams Round 7

Board 19 NORTH
EW vul 96
Dealer S J32
A96542
WEST 10 4 EAST
KQ852 AJ43
4 A Q 10 9 7 6
KQ 873
AK986 SOUTH -
10 7
K85
J 10
QJ7532

W N E S
- - - 3
pass pass dbl All Pass

Result : 3 dbl -5, -1100 for N-S.

The Facts : 3 was not alerted. West picked up the convention card of N-S, looked at North, and North said:
"Natural, preemptive".

The TD was called by North who told the auction and reserved his rights. At the end of the play, North called
the TD again and complained about the double after the actions of West.

The TD's Ruling : North holding a 6/4, no clubs and 11 good points, the TD allowed the double, but severely
warned West and told him that next time the TD would enforce a procedural penalty.

The Committee's Decision : Decision of TD stands. N-S already have a good score since teammates made a
slam. We find it difficult to believe that even if East bids 3 , the alternative action suggested by N-S that E-W
will not reach a slam, since after ... 3 - 3 both players have extra values. We therefore feel that the appeal
lacks substance and retain the deposit.

Comment : We strongly endorse the warning given by the TD to West. Especially without screens,
unauthorised information can come from many sources.

Appeal No. 15

Junior Teams Round 9

Board 20 NORTH
All vul J962
Dealer W QJ972
Q973
WEST - EAST
K53 A 10 4
A6 43
A5 KJ84
AK8653 SOUTH Q J 10 2
Q87
K 10 8 5
10 6 2
974

W N E S
1 pass 1 pass
2NT pass 3 pass
4 pass 5 pass
6 pass pass pass

Result : 6 = -1370 for N-S

The Facts : 6 was bid after a hesitation before 5 from East. 1 in West promises at least 4 cards (ACOL
system), 2NT = 18-19HCP. 1 & 3 from East indicates a good hand (at least 9 points with at least 4/4 in the
minors). If East was weaker (5 to 9 bad points), he would have raised directly to 2 (or 3 ). 4 in West is an
invitation to slam with a 5th card in the suit. East bid only 5 (after thinking) because he had a limited hand
(in his mind, he showed 9+ to 11 points) and West said 6 with all top cards and a 6th card in the trump suit
(10 trumps in his line).

The TD's Ruling : The score was returned to 5 +1, - 620 for N-S. It's always easier to raise to 6 when
partner was thinking before 5 (so showing extra values). If West wanted to play 6 , why didn't he bid 6
directly on 3 ?

The Committee's Decision : The result is changed back to 6 = -1370 for N-S. The Committee accepts the
E-W explanation of their methods that 1 -1 , 2NT-3 is already at least a mild slam try, and that after this
start the issue in West's mind is between 6 and 7 .

Comment : Had West instead made grand slam try over the slow 5 bid, that might well have been a
different matter.

Appeal No. 16

Open Teams Round 1

Board 7 NORTH
All vul KQJ64
Dealer S A6
K74
WEST J84 EAST
10 7 A2
972 10 4
Q 10 9 8 AJ6532
9752 SOUTH AKQ
9853
KQJ853
-
10 6 3

W N E S
- - - 2 *
pass 2NT* 3 3 *
pass 4 dbl pass
5 pass pass 5
pass pass dbl All Pass

Result : 5 dbl -2, -500 for N-S

The Facts : 2 was alerted and explained as Weak 2. East's first double was explained to North as penalty, to
South as takeout.

The TD's Ruling : The TD considered that North received the correct explanation from East, who described
his hand, and that North therefore suffered no dammage. South fully described his hand with 2 and 3 , so
the decission for a 5 sacrifice had to be taken by his partner. South bid 5 on his own responsability and
risk. N-S appealed after comparing the scores. The score stands since his bad score was due to South's own
bidding.

The Committee's Decision : North was damaged because he says that, had he known that his partner had
received misinformation, he would have realised that a 5 bid from South was possible and would have
doubled to prevent it. South was damaged because, had he known that the double of 4 was for penalties, he
would not have bid 5 . The Committee therefore adjusts the result to 5 -2, +200 for N-S.

Editor's Comment : This is a slightly unusual position. The Committee did not have to decide whether the
double was penalties or takeout (although they appear to have favoured the penalty interpretation). In either
case North or South suffered damage as a consequence of the differing explanations.

Appeal No. 17

Juniors Teams Round 10

Board 13 NORTH
All vul A852
Dealer N 9432
K
WEST J862 EAST
Q93 J76
85 A7
J 10 6 5 2 A9843
A75 SOUTH 943
K 10 4
K Q J 10 6
Q7
K Q 10

W N E S
- pass pass 1
pass 2 pass 3 *
pass 4 All Pass

Result : 4 = +620 for N-S

The Facts : North hesitated before bidding 2 . 3 was alerted and explained by North as "forcing with
points and with diamonds".

The convention card of N-S mentions nothing about trial bids. West, with 5 diamonds, led a small heart to
prevent dummy from ruffing diamonds. West said that with a spade lead the contract goes down one.

The TD's Ruling : Concerning the hesitation, the TD decided that South, with 16 points, is allowed to make
an effort over 2 .

On the other hand, the TD decides for wrong explanation (3 showing diamonds, but no entry on the
convention card), so he adjusted the score to 4 -1, -100 for N-S.

The Committee's Decision : Our view is that the situation of a trial bid intended to mislead the opponent
combined with no entry on the convention card about trial bids is unaccecptable. We therefore endorse the
ruling of the TD.

Deposit : forfeited.

Comment : The decision to accept 4 -1 is more a penalty for not having trial bids explained rather than a
view on the play in 4 .

HermanDW@innet.be / Copyright EUBL ©1996